FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF
CONNECTICUT
In the Matter of
a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Henry E.
Buermeyer,
Complainant
against Docket #FIC 86-230
Mayor, City
Council and City Attorney of the City of Groton,
Respondents November 12, 1986
The above captioned matter was heard
as a contested case on September 15, 1986, at which time the complainant and
the respondents appeared, stipulated to certain facts and presented testimony,
exhibits and argument on the complaint.
After consideration of the entire
record the following facts are found:
1.
The respondents are public agencies within the meaning of 1-18a(a),
G.S.
2.
By letter of complaint filed with the Commission on August 20, 1986 the
complainant alleged that the respondents convened improperly in executive
session during their special meeting of July 28, 1986
3.
Also in his letter of complaint, the complainant questioned whether the
employee who was the subject of the executive session had been notified and was
given the opportunity to have the discussion in an open meeting; whether the
respondent town attorney needed to be present for the entire executive session
and whether the respondent council reconvened in open session after concluding
the executive session.
4.
It is found that the respondents convened in executive session at their
July 28, 1986 special meeting for the stated purpose of discussing personnel.
5.
It is also found that the statement "to discuss personnel"
does not adequately reflect the actual purpose of the executive session in
question.
Docket #FIC
86-230
Page 2
6.
It is found that the respondents convened in executive session on July
28, 1986 to direct questions to the town attorney regarding Chief Sandora's
compensation claim, his physical condition and his retirement from the City of
Groton police department.
7.
It is further found that Chief Sandora was notified by the respondent
Mayor that he would be discussed in executive session and that he had a right
to require that the discussion be held at an open meeting.
8.
It is found that the town attorney was invited to attend the executive
session by the respondent council for the purpose of answering questions
regarding Chief Sandora's retirement as defined by 1-21g, G.S.
9.
It is further found that the town attorney's presentation occupied the entire executive session.
10.
It is therefore concluded that the respondents convened in executive
session at their July 28, 1986 special meeting for a permissible purpose within
the meaning of 1-18a(e)(1), G.S.
11.
It is also found that the respondents reconvened in public session prior
to concluding the special meeting in question.
12.
At the hearing before the Commission, the respondents explained that had
the complainant inquired, he would have been told the specific purpose for the
executive session. The respondents also
stated that they are willing to correct the minutes to reflect that Chief Sandora
was the employee discussed in executive session.
13.
The Commission notes, however, that it is not the responsibility of the
general public to oversee meetings of public agencies to assure their
compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, nor is it the responsibility of
the public to request amplification of the public agency's minutes. The responsibility of complying with the Act
lies strictly with the public agency.
Docket #FIC
86-230
Page 3
The following order by the
Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the
above-captioned complaint:
1.
Henceforth, the respondents shall, before convening in executive
session, accurately state the purpose for such session and record such purpose
in the minutes of their meetings, as required by 1-21, G.S.
Approved by order of the Freedom of
Information Commission at its regular meeting of November 12, 1986.
ÿ
Karen J.
Haggett
Clerk of the Commission